If you really had a degree in philosophy, and understood logic well, you wouldnt ask questions like "why is circular reasoning bad"

edit: I have realised that a more charitable interpretation of your statement above might be that you are asking to show that objective logic can exist outside of god. This is not our job. Your claim is that only the existence of god, and specifically the god of christianity, can explain the existence of logic. Its your claim, please show the evidence for your claim.

Please note, appeals to the bible, or similar claims about gods nature, are not evidence of your claim.

Aaaand I thoroughly regret posting in here...Dude, delete your name ffs. I will stop posting.

1. I "outed" myself in the PoliticsForum some time ago. My cover has been blown for months!

2. You can post or not post. Whatever floats your boat.

Says who? And why can't I appeal to those things? How do you know anything at all?

I dont think its worth diving deep into epistemology. How do we know stuff? Thats not what we are asking here.

The rules of logic were developed to solve problems and come to correct conclusions. You can ask why I accept or believe in the laws of logic, and even if I cant really answer that question to your satisfaction, that does not get you one millionth of an inch closer to showing that logic only exists because god exists.

I accept logic as the best way to look at and understand the world. This does not mean I think that there are real , tangible or intangible, laws of logic floating around somewhere. They are abstract ideas.

You have made a claim about the existence of god. I use logic to examine that claim, because its the best way I know of to determine the truth of that claim.

Please show why logic can only exist if god exists.

This, pls.

Whatever, if you think posting your real name on the web is a good idea, go for it...but since you are not even close to "proving Christianity" the whole thread is worthless anyway. Your proof is basically "because I says so".

Well, not a single god has ever existed (because I says so).

Here is quote from my late Christian friend, Gary H.:

The Transcendental Argument for Christian Theism (T.A.C.T), as found in Genesis through Revelation, is from the impossibility of the contradictory; no other worldview or system of thought can account for KNOWLEDGE or any of the things us humans take for granted.

C.T. (Christian Theism) has an account for knowledge: It is ALL that JESUS knows, and since we are created in HIS image, and [since] HE has revealed some of HIS knowledge to us, it is what HE expects us to know.

[will be adding more soon....]

And here is my comment from early in this thread's history, when you first made your claim:

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that what you call Christian Theism is a possible explanation for logic, or whatever, the claim you're supposed to be supporting is that no other explanation is even possible. "The impossibility of the contrary" is the same claim being repeated, when we're waiting for you to support it.


I'm hoping!

Actually, epistemology is EVERYTHING. What I mean by that is, the MACRO question, "How can we know ANYTHING AT ALL?" must necessarily precede MICRO questions of the form, "How can we know X?"

The most fundamental question is: "Who or what is your ultimate authority, and why do you trust it"?

Wow, maximum trolling level achieved.

What does Christian Theism add to the possibility of knowledge that Jewish theism lacks?

You realise if we go down that route, you dont get to claim god as the ultimate authority? You would have to show that god exists, and is the ultimate authority.


So, if you really want, we can go that way, but instead, why not just justify your claim that the (trinitarian) christian god is the only way that logic can exist.

Also, why would/should I care what your late Christian friend, Gary H. said?

I only mentioned Gary to provide proper attribution to the quote.

Any ULTIMATE authority has to be self-attesting or self-authenticating. If God is the ultimate authority, then any "proof" of God would already include God's existence.

For example, suppose someone asked you, "Prove to me that the laws of logic are valid." Any argument that you would give necessarily ASSUME that the laws of logic are already valid.

In short, the PROOF that the laws of logic are valid, is that an argument AGAINST the laws of logic being valid would have to utilize those laws of logic.

In a similar manner, T.A.C.T. is in essence the idea that to rationally DENY God's existence would REQUIRE God to exist in order to DENY Him.

[More to come....]

Just when you thought it could not get any more childish.

"We carve an idol out of our fear (and ignorance) ... and call it god." -- Ingmar Bergman.

So that for as long as we refuse to allow critical thinking into our religion, the joke is on us, as it's an idol of the most base motives, even while posing as the good.

How so?

Thank you for sharing.

When can we expect you to prove Christianity?

Sounds like something which can be demonstrated - cool!

Sounds like something which you're being asked to demonstrate (repeatedly, by this point). But until it has been, it's not actually "in a similar manner" is it?!

One cannot "demonstrate" that the laws of logic are valid. Any such demonstration would have to utilize the laws of logic themselves, which would be circular reasoning (although NOT "viciously circular", which would be a logical fallacy).

The laws of logic are transcendental. That is, they are foundational to ALL thinking.

We could say that the PROOF that the laws of logic are valid is that if the laws of logic were not valid, then you couldn't prove anything at all.

Im not sure that thats a proof, more that its a self detonating argument ( the argument against logic)

But lets say what you said above is true. Great, now show that logic can only exist if the trinitarian christian god exists.

You CAN demonstrate that an argument that attempts to dispute logic is itself using logic, which is what I quoted ("...an argument AGAINST the laws of logic being valid would have to utilize those laws of logic").

We could just say that these particular laws of logic (there are other forms of logic) are descriptive of reality, and if they weren't accurate then they wouldn't be useful to describe reality accurately - a trueism!


Eta: still waiting...!

.

still waiting